Jim was charged with “Possession of sexually explicit pictures of minors”, based on the fact that such pictures, known as “kiddie porn”, were found on his computer by Restronics, and turned over to the police.
...
nobody can say with any confidence when or how the images were put there. Jim could have done it himself, either before he moved out of our house or during one of his visits. Or, they could have been put there by the Cameroonian refugee who was living in our basement during much of the time prior to the fire. Or I could have put them there (but I didn’t). Or, a Restronics employee could have put them there during the 9 months between the time that Jim dropped off his computer there and the time that Restronics called the police.
...

The DUmmie has a few questions...

I asked Jim’s lawyer why the prosecution continued to proceed when there was so little evidence of Jim’s guilt. He said, “I guess the prosecutor must have a lot of time on her hands and needs to find a way to make herself seem relevant”.
Well DUmmie, your nephew gave the computer to the repair store, saying it was his. They found child porn on 'his' computer. That's more than enough evidence

But how does the mere possession of pictures on one’s computer serve in the exploitation of children? Certainly a person could have such pictures on their computer without knowing about it. I would assume that such pictures could find their way onto one’s computer against the owner’s knowledge even if nobody else had access to the computer. Does everyone who owns a computer have the responsibility to ensure that no kiddie porn enters it, lest they be subject to several years of imprisonment?
Prohibiting the possession of kiddie porn is intended to dry up the market for child pornography.

Who can argue in good faith that through regular use, kiddie porn could "find [its] way onto one's computer?" Seriously, what the heck do these people regularly look at online?

Jim seems to trust his lawyer completely. His lawyer is a politically active Democrat. But I’m not so sure about him. He seems to be have pursued this case primarily as a First Amendment issue. I assume that winning such a case is quite a feather in his cap. But it seems to me that the much more basic issue is the paucity of evidence. Specifically, there is very little evidence to suggest that Jim even had possession of his computer when the kiddie porn entered it, and in fact the evidence weighs strongly against that possibility. Shouldn’t a competent defense attorney have gotten this case dismissed for lack of probable cause at the very beginning?
Your lawyer is being nice to your nephew while trying to make a big stink. He is not going to succeed on a 1st amendment claim, the Supreme Court has already decided the issue. The evidence against your nephew is more than enough for a conviction, so he's trying to string out the case hoping that the prosecution will eventually give in rather than submit to lots of appeals.

the foregoing discussion is not intended to be legal advice. No attorney-client privilege is created in the above discussion of this idiot who got caught with child pornography on his computer. While I am not licensed to practice law in Maryland, I can safely advise against possession of child pornography.